File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Response Modality and the Stroop Task: Are There Phonological Stroop Effects With Manual Responses?

TitleResponse Modality and the Stroop Task: Are There Phonological Stroop Effects With Manual Responses?
Authors
KeywordsStroop
selective attention
response mode
phonological
facilitation
Issue Date2019
PublisherHogrefe & Huber Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hhpub.com/journals/exppsy
Citation
Experimental Psychology, 2019, v. 66 n. 5, p. 361-367 How to Cite?
AbstractA long-standing debate in the Stroop literature concerns whether the way we respond to the color dimension determines how we process the irrelevant dimension, or whether word processing is purely stimulus driven. Models and findings in the Stroop literature differ in their predictions about how response modes (e.g., responding manually vs. vocally) affect how the irrelevant word is processed (i.e., phonologically, semantically) and the interference and facilitation that results, with some predicting qualitatively different Stroop effects. Here, we investigated whether response mode modifies phonological facilitation produced by the irrelevant word. In a fully within-subject design, we sought evidence for the use of a serial print-to-speech prelexical phonological processing route when using manual and vocal responses by testing for facilitating effects of phonological overlap between the irrelevant word and the color name at the initial and final phoneme positions. The results showed phoneme overlap leads to facilitation with both response modes, a result that is inconsistent with qualitative differences between the two response modes.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289285
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.1
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.549
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorParris, BA-
dc.contributor.authorSharma, D-
dc.contributor.authorWeekes, BSH-
dc.contributor.authorMomenian, M-
dc.contributor.authorAugustinova, M-
dc.contributor.authorFerrand, L-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-22T08:10:29Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-22T08:10:29Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationExperimental Psychology, 2019, v. 66 n. 5, p. 361-367-
dc.identifier.issn1618-3169-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289285-
dc.description.abstractA long-standing debate in the Stroop literature concerns whether the way we respond to the color dimension determines how we process the irrelevant dimension, or whether word processing is purely stimulus driven. Models and findings in the Stroop literature differ in their predictions about how response modes (e.g., responding manually vs. vocally) affect how the irrelevant word is processed (i.e., phonologically, semantically) and the interference and facilitation that results, with some predicting qualitatively different Stroop effects. Here, we investigated whether response mode modifies phonological facilitation produced by the irrelevant word. In a fully within-subject design, we sought evidence for the use of a serial print-to-speech prelexical phonological processing route when using manual and vocal responses by testing for facilitating effects of phonological overlap between the irrelevant word and the color name at the initial and final phoneme positions. The results showed phoneme overlap leads to facilitation with both response modes, a result that is inconsistent with qualitative differences between the two response modes.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherHogrefe & Huber Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hhpub.com/journals/exppsy-
dc.relation.ispartofExperimental Psychology-
dc.rightsPreprint The manuscript was prepared [Date] and the manuscript in this form has not yet been accepted for publication. Accepted manuscript version This version of the article may not completely replicate the final authoritative version published in [journal title] at [DOI]. It is not the version of record and is therefore not suitable for citation. Please do not copy or cite without the permission of the author(s).-
dc.subjectStroop-
dc.subjectselective attention-
dc.subjectresponse mode-
dc.subjectphonological-
dc.subjectfacilitation-
dc.titleResponse Modality and the Stroop Task: Are There Phonological Stroop Effects With Manual Responses?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailWeekes, BSH: weekes@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityWeekes, BSH=rp01390-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1027/1618-3169/a000459-
dc.identifier.pmid31696793-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85074625587-
dc.identifier.hkuros316361-
dc.identifier.volume66-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage361-
dc.identifier.epage367-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000495891900005-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.issnl1618-3169-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats